Agenda item

Outline application for the layout and redevelopment of residential site including the demolition of existing structures and erection of up to 3no. dwellings including means of access, with all other matters reserved.

Members took a comfort break from 16:40pm – 16:45pm.

Public Participation

Andrew Bird, neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Leah Gingham, neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application.

A statement in support of the application from Ben Pearce, agent on behalf of Land Development & Planning Consultants Ltd, was read out by a Democratic Services Officer.

Councillor Glenis Ansell, on behalf of Calne Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Victoria Davis, the Planning Officer, introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, for an outline application for the layout and redevelopment of a residential site including the demolition of the existing structures and erection of up to 3no. dwellings, including means of access, with all other matters reserved.

Key issues highlighted included: principle of the development; and impact on highway safety.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer. In response to a question from the Chairman, it was clarified that there were 7 properties, including the bungalow on the application site, on Beversbrook Lane.

Members of the public, as detailed above, had the opportunity to address the Committee and speak on the application.

Councillor Philip Whalley requested legal advice from Senior Solicitor Vicky Roberts, as he declared that he knew and worked with the agent for the applicant, who had presented a statement to the Committee. On discussion with the Senior Solicitor, Councillor Whalley confirmed he only knew the agent professionally from working on the Corsham Neighbourhood Plan and had no dealings or discussions regarding this application. It was confirmed that as it was a non-pecuniary interest, Councillor Whalley stated that he would participate in the debate and vote with an open mind.

Local Unitary Member Councillor Tom Rounds spoke in objection to the application. The main points of focus were: access concerns in consideration of the single-track lane; impacts on existing occupants of Beversbrook Lane in respect of light, noise and traffic implications if approved; Core Policy’s 51 and 57; and neighbours reportedly sighting bats in the immediate vicinity of the application site.

Officers clarified that the Highway Engineers were satisfied with the highway safety issues. It was also established that although the presence of bats was mentioned in the report in respect of Core Policy 50, the area was not a special bat interest area and no further consultation was required with the Ecology Team. It was noted that this aspect was protected outside of the planning process in separate regulations such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Core Policy 51 was reiterated as relating to landscape impacts when considering tranquillity and natural beauty as opposed to residential setting applications. Reference was made to Condition 5 and the Construction Method Statement which related to construction traffic and it was suggested that additional criteria such as time restrictions, and limitations to vehicle weights and sizes could be included. It was noted that as the lane was privately owned and not maintained at public expense, there was no ability for the planning authority to require a developer to cover the costs of any damage to the lane itself during construction.

The Chairman, Councillor Tony Trotman, moved a motion to grant planning permission, in line with officer recommendations, subject to conditions. This motion was seconded by Councillor Peter Hutton.

During the debate, members discussed the issues around access and the disadvantages of the site layout plan being labelled as for “illustrative purposes”, alongside the principle of the erection of up to 3no. dwellings in consideration of Core Policy 57. Officers reiterated that as this was an outline application then it was not as specific and exact as a full application which would consider other such matters in the reserved matters stage; it demonstrated what could be a future plan for development. Members were reminded that if they were inclined to refuse the application against officer recommendations on access, then it would be contrary to the conclusions of the Highway Engineer.

Members discussed the Construction Method Statement and emphasised that Condition 5 be bolstered with additional criteria as discussed above in respect to offloading sites, time restrictions and so forth. One member of the Committee suggested an amendment to the motion to grant permission, subject to conditions, but to delegate to the Development Area Manager to amend Condition 5 as mentioned above and discussed by Committee members, to which both Councillors Tony Trotman and Peter Hutton agreed and accepted.

A vote was taken on the motion of approval. During the vote the Democratic Services Officer called upon each member who confirmed they had been able to hear, and where possible, see all relevant materials and indicated their vote in turn.

The motion failed.

A motion to refuse the application on the basis of not meeting Core Policy 57, in particular Sub-Sections 6, 7 and 11, was moved by Councillor Gavin Grant and seconded by Councillor Chuck Berry.

Members debated the principle and reasons for refusal to which officers responded and reinforced advice that the application was outline only and the Sub-Sections quoted were broad, and sought clarification from Councillor Grant as to the specifics of the reasoning behind the motion of refusal. The Council’s officers reaffirmed their advice that in refusing planning permission and overturning the officer’s recommendation for approval on grounds that had been specifically considered and concluded as being acceptable by their own experts (particularly with regards to the adequacy of the access by the Council’s Highways Officer), may expose the Council to a difficult defence at any eventual appeal. For example, the Highways Officer would be unable to defend the highways reasons for refusal put forward, and this could result in an award of costs against the Council. Councillor Grant reiterated the main issues were: access and construction concerns; lack of clarity on the turning circle and increased residential vehicle volume; and impacts on neighbouring residents’ amenities.

At the conclusion of the debate, a vote was taken on the motion of refusal. The Democratic Services Officer called upon each member who confirmed they had been able to hear, and where possible, see all relevant materials and indicated their vote in turn.

Following which, it was:

Resolved

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, by reason of its sitting along a quiet private lane and inappropriate quantum, constitutes overly intensive residential use of the existing plot, the symptoms of which result in a loss of amenity affecting the immediate neighbours.  The proposal fails to have regard for the site characteristics, specifically the lower density level of development along Beversbrook Lane. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Policy 57(vi) & (vii) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

2. The proposal would lead to an intensification in the vehicular use of the private lane which is likely to conflict with the current users of the lane and the amenity value it provides to existing residents. The narrowness of the lane, the increase in vehicle movements and the lack of adequate turning facility means the proposal is also likely to result in conflict with the existing vehicular and pedestrian access arrangements for neighbouring properties along the private lane and impact on highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Policy 57(vi), (vii) & (xi) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.